In June 2016, the inconceivable happened. After a campaign dominated by xenophobia, misrepresentations, chicanery, outright lies and fear-mongering, the British public voted by a thin margin in a referendum to leave the European Union. Quite what this meant has, to this day, not been satisfactorily explained by the proponents of a leave vote. A particular concern that has only incidentally arisen, as part of the ineptly managed exit negotiations (on the part of the Government, as opposed to the clearer and unwavering stance taken by the European Union), is what happens to the current business of cross-border restructurings. This is large and lucrative fee-earning activity of course, but also very useful endeavours contributing to the rescue of business opportunities and associated employment. The twin pillars of any modern insolvency law system are not just a good restructuring law, which should permit rescue and liquidation as well as other measures enabling upstream solutions to be found before the advent of formal insolvency, but also an efficient cross-border framework that allows for coordination of instances involving related entities across jurisdictional frontiers. This is a particularly cogent issue given the move in Europe towards more of a preventive rescue culture, in which cross-border instances will undoubtedly feature.